9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.6, which is an accredited body incorporated in India as a PA, does not make Google itself or its group of companies other than respondent no.6 a PA per se. The discussion is only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioners have made out such palpable and ex-facie case which is evident at the first glance that the Google group of companies are operating as PAs without being accredited/registered to do so on Indian soil - However, the above discussion shows that the issues raised are at best arguable and are to be decided by the RBI, which is the designated regulatory and adjudicatory authority under the PSS Act which has its own ecosystem for dealing with contraventions of the said Act. Even the Competition Act provides fora which have already been approached and the petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of the CCI. Hence, it would be absolutely premature for the writ court to enter into the merits of the self-same issues and pass interim orders as per prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. There is no cause of action disclosed to support the apprehension that RBI will sit indefinitely over the matter. The 12 weeks? time sought by the RBI is sufficiently re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onging to the Google Group of Companies, employ the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for facilitation of payment transactions on the Google Play Store. Thus, it is contended that even without being incorporated within the laws of India as contemplated in the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, the PSS Act ), the respondent nos. 2 to 6 combine forces to act as PAs, thereby flouting the provisions of the PSS Act. 4. The petitioners, it is contended, have already given a comprehensive representation in that regard with the complaint indicated above to the RBI, which is the regulatory and adjudicatory authority under the PSS Act but the same has not yet been decided by the RBI. It is prayed that the RBI be directed to resolve the issues expeditiously and in the meantime the petitioners are not subjugated and forced to accept the payment system of GPBS-UCB employed by the respondent nos. 2 to 6 and that the petitioner no. 1 be not delisted from the Google Play Store for its delay in adopting the allegedly illegal payment model of Google. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners elaborately argues on the definition of PA under the RBI Guidelines and seeks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on February 19, 2024, whereas the writ petition has been filed on the very next day. 13. In fact, the RBI has already served notice on Google on or about February 22, 2024 and has held two sittings on March 6 and March 21, 2024. Whether there is any breach on the part of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, directly or indirectly, through their Group of Companies is already being looked into by the RBI. 14. The RBI being the regulatory and supervisory body has been designated to regulate and supervise payment systems under Section 3(1) of the PSS Act. Wherever a dispute arises between any system participant and a system provider or between system provider or where any of the system participants are not satisfied with the decision of the panel referred to in Section 24(1) of the PSS Act, the dispute is to be referred to the RBI for adjudication under sub-section (3) of Section 24. 15. In terms of the power conferred under Section 18 of read with Section 10 of the PSS Act, the RBI has formulated guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateways on March 17, 2020, as updated on November 17, 2020. 16. Thus, it is argued that the RBI having already initiated adjudication on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the RBI to decide the issues raised by the petitioners and complete the adjudicatory process within 24 hours. Thus, the RBI rightly protests that it requires at least 12 weeks? time to decide the issues involved, since those are required to be enquired into, the concerned parties given an opportunity of hearing and an adjudication on merits to be made upon ascertaining of the surrounding circumstances and the extant legal provisions. No direction, in fact, is required from the writ court to urge the RBI on such count, since there is no reason for any apprehension at this stage that the RBI shall sit over the matter indefinitely. Hence, no cause of action for the primary reliefs sought in the writ petition has, in fact, been disclosed in the writ petition. 20. However, the limited scope of assessment in the writ petition is whether the petitioners are, irrespective of the above factors, entitled to the reliefs sought, seeking restraint on payment by the petitioners and on consequential delistment /coercive steps by respondents for non-payment of the amounts charged by the respondents. 21. For the services offered on the Google Play Store platform to the petitioner no. 1, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r viewing, download and purchasing by user. In Clause 3.7, it has been specified that the products of the petitioner no.1 may be available for free at the option of the petitioners, in which case the petitioners will not be charged a service fee at all. The service charges would only be applicable in the event the petitioners use the platform of Google Play to extract commercial benefit by charging for their own products carried by the platform. 26. Hence, in clear terms, the development agreements specifies that the service charge levied is merely for the service provided by Google for permitting the petitioners to display their products, for making them viewable, downloadable and for purchase of the products by users. The service charges levied are therefore only for carrying products on the Google Play platform and is exacted only when the petitioners extract the platform and exploit it for commercial purposes of their own. The nature of the charge, however, remains as a service charge and leaves no role for Google to Act as a PA. 27. The agreement dated June 2, 2022 between the Google Payment Corporation (respondent no.4) and the petitioners defines service in Clause 1.16 as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit court to enter into the merits of the self-same issues and pass interim orders as per prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. 31. In so far as prayers (a) and (b) are concerned, I have already discussed above that the same is premature and there is no cause of action disclosed to support the apprehension that RBI will sit indefinitely over the matter. The 12 weeks? time sought by the RBI is sufficiently reasonable in the opinion of this Court, considering the intricate issues involved and the enquiries to be made as well as the hearing to be afforded to the concerned parties, even leaving alone the required detailed examination of the agreements between the parties and the modalities of operation of the concerned group of companies. Thus, there is no scope of interference in any manner, at least at the present juncture. 32. Accordingly, WPA No. 4625 of 2024 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs, expressing the hope and trust that the RBI (respondent no. 1) shall decide the issues raised by the petitioners before it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 weeks from date. 33. It is further made clear that the merits of the contentions raised herein h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
